US Vetos UNSC Vote on the Arafat Resolution

[dexvx]

Straight from the AP:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20030916/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_israel_palestinians

Interesting is that Germany and Great Britain abstained. Total of 11 in favor, 3 neutral, and 1 veto. No wonder things never get down in the UN. They should make a majority rules :evil:

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So the US says killing or deporting Arafat would not help the peace process but refuses to endorse this resolution . . .

The rejected draft resolution would have demanded "that Israel, the occupying power, desist from any act of deportation and to cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority."

It would have condemned Israel's targeted assassinations of militant leaders and Palestinian suicide bombings, "all of which caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims." It would also have called for a cessation of "all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction."

. . . on the grounds that it does not go far enough in endorsing the US roadmap and didn't name Hamas as a group responsible for terrorism. I wonder why they couldn't just vote on this one . . . since they obviously agree . . .

Immediately after the vote, America's U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte reiterated that the United States doesn't support the elimination or forced exile of Arafat and believes that his diplomatic isolation is the best course.

. . . and then sponsor a second resolution condemning the actions of Hamas, Al Aqsa, and all other groups that show little if any regard for innocent human life?

 

[Bulk Beef]

. . . and then sponsor a second resolution condemning the actions of Hamas, Al Aqsa, and all other groups that show little if any regard for innocent human life?

Perhaps b/c such a sensible res would be a non-starter?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Who's going to vote against it . . . Syria? None of the veto holders would vote against a reasonably worded resolution . . . not even France.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Who's going to vote against it . . . Syria? None of the veto holders would vote against a reasonably worded resolution . . . not even France.

Contrary to recent popular opinion that France loves to veto, France has only done 5 solo vetos in the existance of the UN. This has been by far the least amount of solo vetos of the 5 countries of the permanent security council. All 5 of the vetos were also spread out and on varying issues. The bulk of UK's solo vetos comes from Zimbabwe, and for the USA it was Isreal. The USSR has the record amount of solo vetos, I think its over 200.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Who's going to vote against it . . . Syria? None of the veto holders would vote against a reasonably worded resolution . . . not even France.

Contrary to recent popular opinion that France loves to veto, France has only done 5 solo vetos in the existance of the UN. This has been by far the least amount of solo vetos of the 5 countries of the permanent security council. All 5 of the vetos were also spread out and on varying issues. The bulk of UK's solo vetos comes from Zimbabwe, and for the USA it was Isreal. The USSR has the record amount of solo vetos, I think its over 200.

Sorry we love to veto a lot. Im sure we are second in line as far as vetos for isreal.

 

[lozina]

Preliminarily, I'm calling this a big disappointment by USA. However it looks like that resolution had some strings attached which I did not know about earlier, I have to read more about the resolution in full detail. Why didn't they just draft a resolution to prevent Israel from expelling/killing Arafat, period ?

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: lozina
Preliminarily, I'm calling this a big disappointment by USA. However it looks like that resolution had some strings attached which I did not know about earlier, I have to read more about the resolution in full detail. Why didn't they just draft a resolution to prevent Israel from expelling/killing Arafat, period ?

Any resolution that asks anythinig from the Israelis that they do not want to do will be vetoed by the US. We are their b!cth and many in this forum would have it no other way. There has not been any resolution remotely critical of Israel that has not been slammed down by the US. Were that same resolutions put against any other nation we would be doing everything in our power to get it passed.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Who's going to vote against it . . . Syria? None of the veto holders would vote against a reasonably worded resolution . . . not even France.

Stop bashing the French.

 

[dahunan]

Arafat spent all of his youth trying to kill jews and later became a politician who instructs others in ways to kill jews.

In Cairo, before he was seventeen Arafat was smuggling arms to Palestine to be used against the British and the Jews.

He spent all his spare time in political activities, to which he contributed most of the profits. In 1958 he and his friends founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary, organising Fatah raids into Israel from Jordan.

**fatah raids = killing raids

King Hussein of Jordan, disturbed by its guerrilla attacks on Israel and other violent methods, eventually expelled the PLO from his country.

From his fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize site..

 

[kaizersose]

my favorite quote from the nobel site.

"Like other Arab regimes in the area, however, Arafat's governing style tended to be more dictatorial than democratic."

and thats from the nobel peace prize site (i wouldnt think that they want to portray the recipient of their award as a brutal dictator)! i wonder what an independent review would say.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Although I have not read a complete text of the resolution . . . the US position may be more BS . . .

CNN

After the vote, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte reiterated the American position that the resolution lacked balance.

"As we said yesterday, we will not support any resolution that evades the explicit threat to Middle East peace process posed by Hamas and other such terrorist groups," Negroponte said.

The rejected resolution would have demanded "that Israel, the occupying power, desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority."

It would have called for the cessation of "all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction."

It also would have condemned both Israel's attacks on militant leaders and Palestinian suicide bombings, "all of which caused enormous suffering and many innocent victims."

Essentially the US position is that naming Israel but not Hamas or Al Aqsa is tantamount to giving those organizations a pass. I guess Palestinian suicide bombings refers to Saddam's regime or Castro.

 

[Miramonti]

The US vetoed because they wouldn't want to give a false impression that they are against political assasinations.

Anyhow, the justification that the resolution wasn't balanced was completely absurd, since hamas has not stated their intent to assasinate sharon.

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: jjsole
The US vetoed because they wouldn't want to give a false impression that they are against political assasinations.

Anyhow, the justification that the resolution wasn't balanced was completely absurd, since hamas has not stated their intent to assasinate sharon.

yes they have. they have threatened him personally with violence through official statements in the press and quotes from officials at rallies. furthermore, their stated goal is the elimination of israel and all of it's people, i dont think any specific threats are needed.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: kaizersose

Originally posted by: jjsole The US vetoed because they wouldn't want to give a false impression that they are against political assasinations. Anyhow, the justification that the resolution wasn't balanced was completely absurd, since hamas has not stated their intent to assasinate sharon.

yes they have. they have threatened him personally with violence through official statements in the press and quotes from officials at rallies. furthermore, their stated goal is the elimination of israel and all of it's people, i dont think any specific threats are needed.

I didn't say if they had an open shot, they wouldn't take it....

But the US should have made a stand against an assasination. Thats their supposed position, they shouldn't have been so cowardly since israel is currently considering doing it. Every resolution against israel the US doesn't support it because they feel their not condemning hamas and terrorism enough. Its a weak excuse for pandering to israel.

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: kaizersose

Originally posted by: jjsole The US vetoed because they wouldn't want to give a false impression that they are against political assasinations. Anyhow, the justification that the resolution wasn't balanced was completely absurd, since hamas has not stated their intent to assasinate sharon.

yes they have. they have threatened him personally with violence through official statements in the press and quotes from officials at rallies. furthermore, their stated goal is the elimination of israel and all of it's people, i dont think any specific threats are needed.

I didn't say if they had an open shot, they wouldn't take it....

But the US should have made a stand against an assasination. Thats their supposed position, they shouldn't have been so cowardly since israel is currently considering doing it. Every resolution against israel the US doesn't support it because they feel their not condemning hamas and terrorism enough. Its a weak excuse for pandering to israel.

if you think the US panders to israel in the UN, you should check the resolution count against israel and arab states/palestinian terrorism. hell, even after they invaded israel on yom kippur on 1973, the no resolutions were passed condeming the invasion. now, syria (security council member) introduces a resolution to blame israel any time a palestians trips and falls.

edit: spelling